|
To keep pthighs naming convention rolling along: The Dean Martin
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 22:51 |
|
|
The Lafayette I put forward the ship design. I hope within the next three years a three knot minimum increase with a larger deck gun system. At this era scientific advancement is so rapid we have to plan for the future. Top Hats Monthly fucked around with this message at 03:21 on Jul 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
A 24 knot battleship?! You ask for much! We shall see if the researchers can deliver. [edit] Also, I kind of hope the game ends up smacked with some tonnage/armament restrictions at some point. Just building bigger and bigger ships gets boring. Trying to squeeze every last drop of effectiveness out of a strict tonnage budget is much more entertaining. Though preferably after we get a few large Battleships rolled out so they get grandfathered in. Galaga Galaxian fucked around with this message at 03:34 on Jul 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
We can remove the submerged torpedo tubes to free up some weight for additional armor or guns. A battleship is so ungainly and the submerged tubes such a narrow firing arc that I don't think its worth the added weight/cost.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
Err... I swear I removed those already. Must've snuck their way back in when I reloaded the design after not liking some changes. Just a moment. *scribble scribble* There. Fixed it. Used the weight to add in four more 3" guns and twenty more rounds for the 12 inch guns.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
Affi posted:I'll join up if we name our first class of ships the Ving Rhames class. (drat am I spelling it wrong? Its been so long) I would be for that, and yes, I think it's been about 7-8 years. Anyways, a few things we could consider for a first bill. 1) Standardization of speed. Regardless of what we go with for battleship designs, keeping the speed constant between them is essential for maintaining an effective battle line. Trying to increase the speed part way through the game splits your fleet or renders many of your ships less viable. Thus, we should consider 20, 21, 22 kts as being ideal. Picking this early is beneficial for doctrine. 2) The armored cruiser that's totally not a battlecruiser bill. In my game, in the first few years I was able to build an 18,000 ton armored cruiser that had 8x2 10" guns and a 27kts top speed, while still keeping armor. It remained viable the entire game and was very good at the fine art of hunting down raiders. I even had two of them take down an early battlecruiser with few issues. They're basically able to murder everything until you get superimposed CA turrets, and even afterwards remain as contenders. Anyways, holding off on too much construction until we have the money and technology to buy a pack of these seems to be a good strategy for winning early wars. Just keep them out of the way of torpedoes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
I propose, nay, DEMAND our ships of the line reach at least a speed of 24 knots! See the following diagram:  See how the slow dumb ship is getting blown up like the idiot child's toy that it is? And how the cool fast ship is still unharmed and firing and and look how much better guns it has, how is this even a choice? The Cool Fast Ships for Cool People Party demands a minimum of 24 knots for any ship in our glorious navy
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 04:12
|
|
|
Sure if I used certain design strategies I could develop super cruisers and fast battleships (in fact I just designed a version of my battleship that goes 24knots and gets reclassified a BC), but playing hyper optimally using the benefit of hindsight and knowing the future of Dreadnoughts and Battlecruisers is boring. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
Saros posted:It's probably also worth noting that the L by the Admiral charner class in the ship list denotes long range. They will be significantly more capable raiders than our other ships. I will join this party too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
 Here is a proper manly battleship to get us started. i would thank my near-lethal fever and the makers mark distilleries for assisting me in this design
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
cramped accommodations?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
Sharp eyes there. You will go far in this navy
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
Illegal Username posted:
I like this. I like it enough to start the ol' Cock & Bulls party: where the only legislation that is immediate is that all ships must have a phallic shape in remembrance of a penis with balls on it when viewed top down.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
Unfortunantly BBs only go to 23 otherwise called a bc, now my fast friend if you will support 23 for our supermaxweightfuckoffships that are floating islands of guns we can talk  I hereby declare myself head of the technocratic party, more technology and more budgets to have technology with is our platform. This is clearly a stance that all other factions can support... unless they are dirty peaceniks
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
Oh, a Legislative LP? I propose the  Neo-Napoleonic Party  , with the goal of never allowing France to back down in international politics, protecting our prestige, and destroying the evil nation of Germany. Destruction of Austria-Hungary, Russia and Britain are secondary priorities. If the people of this thread choose to stand with me, we will propose laws seeking to make these wars happen, and to ensure that we are prepared when the time comes. For budgetary matters, we will advocate for higher intelligence funding, and for the funding of ships designed to one-up our foreign enemies.
Takanago fucked around with this message at 04:40 on Jul 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
What a pathetic broadside. And 90 rounds each? Only planning on staying out for a short jaunt, eh? And oh look, a phallic designed superstructure, whats the point? You'd need a balloon or one of those flying machines everyone keeps foolishly dying trying to build to see it, and you don't exactly find those in the ocean. And flat deck? Why not go full cheese and "Everything or Nothing" the armor scheme?  You offend my aesthetic senses, good sir!
Galaga Galaxian fucked around with this message at 04:37 on Jul 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
AtomikKrab posted:Unfortunantly BBs only go to 23 otherwise called a bc Galaga Galaxian posted:And oh look, a phallic designed superstructure, whats the point? You'd need a balloon or one of those flying machines everyone keeps foolishly dying trying to build to see it, and you don't exactly find those in the ocean. to be
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
So. Do people in my party think we should go floating island route a lá Montana and Yamato or more just fast BBs with big guns?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
The battleships we have now won't be much use either way. At 24 knots we'd have a hard time fitting enough guns and armor to have a useful ship. While we're waiting for developments in bigger ships, we could focus on building destroyers and some fast light cruisers. Our CLs especially are pretty  and by building some 25 knot, 6" gun scouts we could free the old ships up for other jobs.If we limit it to one or two new battleships, we should have room to improve our lighter ships, and it's something we could do with our current technology. CLs see a lot of action, so it's not just busy work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
The solution is we just need to get into a war to increase our budget so we can get more, nicer battleships and possibly I actually agree, I designed this battleship because I could, not because I advocate building more. We've got a good amount for now (at least until someone finally finds that drat ship and tonnage report on the other nations). I can design a better Light/Protected Cruiser if everyone wants, and/or a Heavy/Armored Cruiser. Really, I just wanna build ships, I don't care about the politics of it all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
You raise a good point. If you want to discuss further, hop on #botes on synirc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
Top Hats Monthly posted:cramped accommodations? Illegal Username posted:Sharp eyes there. You will go far in this navy 6 knots faster than our other battleships, medium range, cramped conditions, and the graphic is missing two secondary guns: not that great for the long distances needed to patrol the colonies, and its too fast to keep a line of battle with our other battleships. Is it meant to be a raider? Edit: Also, maybe we should consider starting with some lovely 1000-2000 ton gun boats for colonial duty so we don't get our knees broken by irate colonial governors? Being able to actually use the bigger ships we actually have (without getting a prestige penalty) might make more sense for such a mess of a colonial power such as France. thetruegentleman fucked around with this message at 05:00 on Jul 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
What's the point of those pathetic 6" guns? They can't hurt a fly, let alone a warship. No ship shall be constructed without the biggest guns available, and anything not capable of fitting at least 10-inchers will not be accepted in the glorious French navy!
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 04:53
|
|
|
Arelon posted:What's the point of those pathetic 6" guns? They can't hurt a fly, let alone a warship. No ship shall be constructed without the biggest guns available, and anything not capable of fitting at least 10-inchers will not be accepted in the glorious French navy! code:Oh, and we currently can only build two main turrets on the centerline of the ship and no wing (sides of the deck) turrets. [edit] Also, I want to live and build ships in a world where this:  is "pathetic". Galaga Galaxian fucked around with this message at 04:59 on Jul 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
Gentlemen, I have a proposition. Let's gently caress up Italy a bunch and take it over.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
Galaga Galaxian posted:
Then we don't need secondary guns. Saves on the weight too. Edit: you know how the A-10 is basically a plane built around a gun? That's what I want, only in heavily armored ship form. Darkest Auer fucked around with this message at 05:02 on Jul 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
Gamerofthegame posted:Gentlemen, I have a proposition. This man. He gets it. Perhaps a party is in order after all...
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 05:02
|
|
|
Arelon posted:Then we don't need secondary guns. Saves on the weight too. We can currently only build ships with two centerline main turrets. We currently only have Double or Single Main Turrets available. The largest gun caliber we have is a 13" -2 quality (11" and 12" guns are -1 quality, everything else is +0 quality). We basically Need those "pathetic" secondary batteries to have a decent amount of firepower.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
Takanago posted:Oh, a Legislative LP? I for one would gladly put my weight behind this party. It will fulfill my need for bloodshed and allow us to elevate mighty France to her rightful place, while striking down the upstart nations of Europe and beyond.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
Urgent dispatch from the Prime Minister's office!Pierre Waldeck-Rousseau posted:
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
Here's a proposition: better sea-rations. Have you seen the slop they feed the rank-and-file? It looks like dog sick. If we give'em better food, they'll fight harder and die less, right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
But you see, we feed them slop because no proud Frenchman wants that to be his final meal. So he is very much motivated to return home and eat a fine meal with his family again. If we fed them feasts at sea, they would be content to die there!
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
Asehujiko posted:I shall join the Big ships, bigger guns party and back the additional research bill. I too, agree with both of those things. Also, to maintain our superiority, I vote that we go the speed route.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
Alikchi posted:Dropping subs is a crazy idea. Our greatest naval threat is Britain and advanced submarines doing commerce warfare will be the only way to bring them to their knees without incredibly improbable traditional naval victories. This is dirty Spanish thinking! We ought to be investing that money in a better fleet so that victory during our fleet engagement is insured! Also, what kind of cowardly fighter dances and prances out of the way of his opponent's blows? I propose that No battleship faster than 17kt be constructed. You're all a bunch of cowards and will be the death of this glorious nation with your new ideas. S w a y z e fucked around with this message at 05:46 on Jul 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
Submarines are basically the wine cellars of naval warfare.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
Without three centerline turrets or crossfiring wing turrets there's little point to building battleships at the moment. Better to design some improved cruisers and coastal submarines as those will be useful for decades.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
Can we please try not to actively sabotage the head admiral right off the bat? A game where we're desperately fighting to not be in last place all the way to the end isn't fun 
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Without three centerline turrets or crossfiring wing turrets there's little point to building battleships at the moment. Better to design some improved cruisers and coastal submarines as those will be useful for decades. Won't the navy league try to knife us all in our sleep if we don't have some big ships?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
Mukaikubo posted:Won't the navy league try to knife us all in our sleep if we don't have some big ships? The battleships we have should be sufficient to keep them happy for a few years unless someone (*cough* England *cough*) lays down a bunch. I mean, just to make things clear. We have 7 Battleships with another 2 under construction that is probably more than enough*. We should avoid constructing more battleships for now in favor of more Armored Cruisers and Protected Cruisers. We actually have a good amount of Protected Cruisers/CLs, but they're all kinda mediocre. I do feel we're short a few Armored Cruisers, we only have 4! But really, I want to see what the other navies are packing in terms of numbers/tonnage levels before I make any sweeping statements. *Again, England or another close competitor could prove me wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 06:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 22:51 |
|
|
Illegal Username posted:Sharp eyes there. You will go far in this navy The BE and DE armor is superfluous, you can axe it for some more speed if you want to draw on your not-actually-building-this-in-1900 knowledge. Casemates are also probably a better investment than secondary turrets with our tech. uPen fucked around with this message at 06:23 on Jul 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 06:20
|
|
